The MRC ‘Cinema’

Lipshutz, Hyams and Esakoff declared an ‘indirect interest’ and left the chamber.

Moved to accept ‘as printed’ by Pilling. Seconded by Okotel

PILLING: Thought that the conditions imposed by the officers addressed the ‘concerns’ of objectors such as ‘timing, the sound’ plus that the screen is ‘well away from residential areas’. Admitted that this is a ‘different usage’ but with all the ‘checks and balances’ he is ‘supportive of this recommendation’.

OKOTEL: said that there is ‘no designation’ for use of the land so council has to consider the application under ‘planning grounds’ . With the imposed conditions she thought it ‘appropriate’ since the cinema will only happen when ‘other uses are not occuring’. The screen is ‘350 metres away from the nearest house’ and that is ‘quite a considerable distance’ and hence ‘wouldn’t affect the amenity of the neighbours’. The liquor license is ‘available already’ and there won’t be any ‘additional’ licenses.

SOUNNESS: said that he was ‘speaking against the motion’ only because he felt that ‘there should be someone speaking against it’. The racecourse is a ‘site that is somewhat vexed’. Said that the reports and decisions that have ‘come down’ suggest that the operational aspects of the racecourse show that it isn’t ‘always a clean operation’ . He ‘supports’ the motion and the chance of use. Although the conditions ‘seem to be quite useful’ he doubts whether council has got the ‘capacity’ to ensure compliance. Was ‘sure’ that there were answer to such questions about who operates the land.

DELAHUNTY: asked Torres the question about the state of the lease.

TORRES: said he understood that ‘there is no current lease’

DELAHUNTY: would vote in favour but thought that the conditions were ‘perplexing’ since ‘they can’t be met under the current arrangements’. Said that in chairing the planning conference it was ‘interesting to hear the different interpretations of language’ from residents versus the MRC. Said that the department has ‘sent a letter to the MRC suggesting that’ it’s in favour of the permit if the Trust agrees to it. The MRC therefore has ‘interpreted this as under existing use’ and current lease, but there is no current lease. She will vote in favour because she is all for ‘more people using their land’ even though there will be ‘some profit taking’. She hoped that since the conditions can’t be met it ‘forces the parties back to the table’ to negotiate.

OKOTEL: asked whether the conditions imposed would be ‘enforceable’

TORRES: said that for any planning permit that ‘conditions are enforceable’ and that not only by council but that ‘any member of the public can apply’ to VCAT.

LOBO: said he was ‘surprised that the MRC is getting everything’. It’s supposed to be for public park as well as racecourse and ‘we are running short’ of sporting fields. Another ‘sicking point’ was that there is provision for 150 car spaces but ‘they are expecting 500 people’. So are they expecting families or ‘lovers’ to come?

MAGEE: said he doesn’t have any ‘problem with the screen being there’ and the community using the racecourse. He does have a ‘problem with the Auditor General’s report’. One of the recommendations was for a plan to be produced for the racecourse and when the plan is produced ‘it may not be consistent with’ the cinema. This cinema might not be ‘consistent’ with the wishes of the Trustees or the committee of management if it is formed. Said that the condition about Trustee approval means that ‘it must have unanimous approval’ and ‘not a majority of the trustees’ because there is no ‘trust, just a group of trustees’. Said that the Auditor General’s report was ‘scathing’ and he is ‘surprised they haven’t all resigned’. He would have resigned straight off. Said that the Auditor General’s report was ‘instigated’ in part by himself since he had written to the Auditor General. This ‘could be a community asset although there will be some profit taking’ from Crown Land. He has no problem with the MRC because they only do ‘what the trustees allow them to do’. ‘They are a good citizen’ and that ‘they run the racecourse very, very well’. They’ve been ‘allowed to do the wrong thing’ for 150 years. Hoped that things change this year.

DELAHUNTY: wanted Magee to confirm that she hadn’t been misunderstood about whether the conditions were enforceable if the lease negotiations fell apart. Magee confirmed that there was no misunderstanding. Reiterated that the new lease had to be a unanimous decision by all the trustees.

PILLING: acknowledged concerns about governance but this is a planning decision and that the Auditor general’s report was a ‘separate matter’. His decision is ‘purely on planning and he thought there were ‘merits’ to the proposal in ‘allowing community people in there’.

MOTION PUT: LOBO WAS THE ONLY COUNCILLOR TO VOTE AGAINST.

COMMENT

This discussion raises far more questions than providing answers. Here are some:

Since when does the Trustee’s decision have to be unanimous? At the last trustee meeting, the vote was clearly split. (See: https://gleneira.wordpress.com/2014/10/22/news-flash-the-mrc-god-given-right-to-rule/

Or is this a condition that the department has now imposed on the ‘negotiations’? If so, then why can’t the public be informed as to what is actually going on and what the parameters of the negotiations entail? Further, why is it taking so long to achieve a lease?

Contradictions are apparent once again. When it came to the McKinnon Bowls Club renting out their third green the argument was that public land not be used for commercial profit. Delahunty was adamant on this. Not a mention this time around. So the question becomes – why is this different?

Magee’s applauding of the MRC as ‘good citizens’ leaves us speechless!

Related

17 Responses to “The MRC ‘Cinema’”

I think you have to take what Magee said ‘good citizens’ with what else he said. How could you say the MRC are bad when successive governments have turned a blind eye to their activities. How could you disagree with his comment ‘they run the racecourse very, very well’. They run a minority unprofitable racing club and subsidise it by taking from the poor (casino) and give to themselves.

Ms PENNICUIK (Southern Metropolitan)—My constituency question is for the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water. In September 2014 the Auditor-General tabled a report on governance arrangements for the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. The audit concluded that the trustees have not been effective in their overall management of the reserve, conflicts of interest have not been adequately managed, and the Department of Environment and Primary Industries had not effectively overseen the management of the reserve by the trustees and had not intervened in significant issues that adversely affected the trustees’ management of the reserve, and therefore there has been a lack of accountability over the trust’s performance. In October 2014 the chairman of the trustees wrote a letter to many members of Parliament raising concerns about decisions that had been made by the trustees. Therefore my question to the minister is: what action has she taken to reform the governance arrangements at the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve?

Blame Jim who made a big show in the press and spoke on TV that he has achieved something that was never possible. He is a disgruntled Councillor who was not required amongst the trustees. Smart 3 are doing better job than him.

There’s no lease and no trustee permission as yet which are the conditions for the permit. That makes me ask why council had to jump the gun and give consent when everything else is still up in the air.

Conditions are supposed to be enforceable. So says Torres here. Then how come council doesn’t enforce all the regulations on the racecourse and the permits that theyve been given. I’m not even referring to the shocking agreement that the mrc has treated like toilet paper and nothing is done about it.

Mr SOUTHWICK (Caulfield)—(Question 80) My question is to the Minister for Environment, Climate Change and Water. In September 2014 the Victorian Auditor-General’s Office released a report titled Management and Oversight of the Caulfield Racecourse Reserve. The report highlighted that the significant trustees have not been effective in their overall management of the reserve, and that there is a need to improve arrangements to effectively guide the management of the reserve. The report also highlighted that the trustees have not established a strategic plan for land use and development. Consequently, conflicts of interest have not been adequately managed, and preference has been afforded to racing interests, with insufficient attention given to use of the reserve for recreational pursuits of the public.
A key issue in my electorate is the lack of open space and the pressure to find sporting facilities for football, cricket, soccer and even basketball. As I have stated publicly, the racecourse reserve could ideally be used for these sporting activities, which would complement its racing activities. I therefore ask: will the government action the recommendations of the Victorian Auditor-General’s report, and encourage greater public use of the land and more transparency of the trust?